[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Seraphim Blade]

The harm there is exactly why we -do- prohibit original research. How
do old issues of the NYT show something in general? What if the NYT
used to have a paragraph in its style guide that said you shouldn't
use the phrase except in a few rare cases, put into place in the early
50s, changed that in the mid-80s to state that it was acceptable, and
it's been used more and more in the paper to this day? What if it was
used all over the place, and the NYT was behind the curve? You're not
a statistician (at least, I presume not), and interpretation of raw
statistics is -always- more complex than it appears, especially when
having to look for (and eliminate) potential skewing factors like the
ones I mentioned above.

On 4/2/07, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > From: Guy Chapman aka JzG
>
> > Look up a fact?  No problem.  Join the dots from a series of facts you
> > looked up?  Original research, in my book.
>
> I was recently working on an article (not in Wikipedia) on the phrase "Slippery slope," which these days usually means "a course leading inexorably to disaster." I wanted to support a statement that although there _are_ old uses of the phrase in its modern meaning, it became much more popular starting around 1980.
>
> My public library (and _many_ others) provide online access to a searchable full page-image database of complete back issues of the New York Times. In a few minutes, I was able to compile this:
>
> Hits on exact phrase "slippery slope", all article types, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) (a database available to patrons of many public libraries)
>
> 1857-99: 5 (average about 1 per decade)
> 1900-49: 41 (average 8.2 per decade)
> 1950-59: 11
> 1960-69: 23
> 1970-79: 36
> 1980-89: 144
> 1990-99: 402
>
> Well, can I use this in an article? Under Wikipedia's present rules, I don't think so.
>
> And yet.
>
> It is certainly original research. But it's verifiable, sensu Wikipedia, in that it the database is very widely available so it's easy to confirm my results. In fact it's easier than verifying an obscure print publication with no online copy. And, in this particular case, my assemblage of facts is intellectually honest: it is reasonable to want to know the history of the phrase's use, and this is a reasonable way to find out. This is not a selective assembly of facts made for the purpose of suggesting a biassed conclusion.
>
> And I was _not_ able to find a published source that said in so many words that the phrase bloomed in popularity around 1980.
>
> Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?
>
> Other than its being the first step on a slippery slope, of course.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>